“First, I am not saying that the government should intervene to stop the Church from supporting Bush (although tax-free status must be questioned at this point). I am saying that the Church should not do it. It is wrong for them to do it, but it is not illegal.”

As has been noted elsewhere, the Church does not support Bush. It is merely against the pro-choice position. And what do you mean by wrong? Immoral, or inappropriate?

Also, (sorry for sending a barrage of questions at you), to get back to the point about the Church being in the wrong by opposing certain forms of government, was it wrong for the Church to oppose Leninism as loudly as it did?

This is what I make of your reasoning. Please correct me if I’m not reading you correctly.

IF1 Abortion is a constitutional right, and2 Catholicism opposes abortion, and3 It is wrong for a religious group to oppose a governmental system

“What you are saying is that the Church can tell people how to vote, but not what sort of government should be in power? “Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. There there is a separation between ecclesiastic and civil authorities. When that separation has not occurred, it has been disastrous. Furthermore, the Bible does instruct us that, while God is our spiritual king, we should give unto caesar what is caesar’s.

“Also, one of the articles asks the question of whether having a democracy means having abortions, pornography etc. and it is well worth noting that those problems are no more pervasive in democratic countries than non-democratic countries. Most notably, China engages in widespread infanticide, and a strong majority of Russian pregnancies are aborted.”

Perhaps that’s the point the author hoped to make. Democracy has a vested interest in protecting the rights of individuals, particularly those who are most vulnerable. If we fail to protect the unborn, we may be discarding an important hallmark of democratic civilization.

As I understand it, the issue is not what powers the government may have (pace John), but rather what behaviors within a government shoudl be aided and/or abetted by Catholics. If the government permits abortions, it is, according to Catholic dogma (not just doctrine!), permitting an evil. Doesn’t matter if it’s a monarchy, democracy, or tyranny that’s doing it. It’s wrong. It goes for Bush and the other branchs of the US government, it goes for Putin, it goes for Jiang Zemin (or whoever’s taking over from him–Hu Jintao? Shoot, they’re beginning to run together in my head). This is not an argument about the structure of government.

If a Church member aids an evil, he or she may be guilty of mortal sin, depending on the magnitude of the evil and so forth. The Church may then decide whether or not that member is in good standing and thus whether the member is disposed to receive the Eucharist. The nature of government does not fall into that calculus. Kerry has the right under the Constitution to assert that the right to choose is morally permissible even for Catholics. He does not have a Constitutional right to be a Catholic in good standing in spite of whatever he belives, however.

We have a right to association under the Constitution, and groups have the Constitutional right to determine their membership. Hence why Boy Scouts may evict gays from their leadership, or the NAACP may refuse to have anyone but a black person in their upper echelons. Or that an Orthodox Jewish council may exclude a non-Orthodox, non-rabbi goy without said gentile suing them for discrimination, for that matter.

The Church’s stance on abortion falls within that framework, and I feel horrible that people leave the Church, but Church must witness to the truth as it sees it, as has always been its mandate.

The rest of it should read:…while the United States sees as its primary goal the protection of the personal liberties of its citizens. I think this belief comes from the essentially individual-centered (Deistic) Protestant ethos of the Founding Fathers.

First off, segregation was legal for a hundred years inspite of clearly violating the 14th amendment. I can put up countless such examples, but unless you don’t agree that the government has enacted unconstitutional laws, I won’t belabor the point. So the mere fact that abortions were once illegal does not mean that such a law is within the legitimate domain of federal authority.

Our system puts more restraints on government authority than the vast majority of nations on earth. It is built on the notion of tiers of sovereignty. The federal government has soveriegnty over certain things, the state has sovereignty over certain things, all the way down to the individual having soveriegnty over certain things.There are a wide birth of limited soveriegnties that the individual has. For instance, an individual has soveignty over his property unless a court order forces him to allow police to inspect it.There is a somewhat narrower birth of nearly absolute soveriegnties. Speech being a great example. My soveriegnty over my speaking is almost complete. (inspiring iminent lawless action is the standard to limit speech, just because that’s a good thing to know).There are some points where that soveriegnty is absolute. For instance, the goverment may not intrude on your conversation with a lawyer or priest.You also exercise an exceptional measure of soveriegnty over your own body. And courts have ruled that the government may not impugn upon that soveriegnty by forcing you to support a fetus within you.

First off, these articles are all intellectually vapid. For instance, one of them explains that “liberal democracy” means “secular democracy”. That’s simply not true, liberal democracy means a democracy in which the fundamental unit of society is taken to be the individual, whereas a conservative democracy says that the society itself is the fundamental unit.

Also, one of the articles asks the question of whether having a democracy means having abortions, pornography etc. and it is well worth noting that those problems are no more pervasive in democratic countries than non-democratic countries. Most notably, China engages in widespread infanticide, and a strong majority of Russian pregnancies are aborted.

I’d also like to point out that my Aunt Dorothy recieving a letter from her bishop saying that voting for kerry is a mortal sin caused yet another member of my family to renounce the Church (this was a woman who was seriously considering becoming a nun till she met my uncle).

Also, that puts in remarkably clear light a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the Church. At countless points in history, starting with the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years war, the Church has struck a concord with the state whereby in exchange for not trying to control the government, the Chuch would be left in peace. We need look no further than the French Revolution to see what the price has been for renegging on that agreement.

This meddling is particularly bothersome when it is being perpetrated against a constitutional government. The Church is a moral authority, and it can tell its members what actions are moral. However, what place does it have telling its members what powers should or should not be vested in their governments? That is not a theological question, it is not a question which the Church is in any position to comment intelligently upon.

I disagree that any of the articles equate liberal democracy with secular democracy. One of them explains that, although the terms are not synonymous, in modern parlance they are used interchangeably: “We are used to speaking of ‘liberal democracy’ which as currently understood is a synonym for ‘secular democracy.'” Although you are right that the terms are not properly the same, they are used the same way all the time. Also, in the same article, Archbishop Pell points out that abortions, pornography, and such things that the Catholic Church opposes are *not* inherent within democracy (although your statement regarding abortion frequency in other societies is interesting).

“Also, that puts in remarkably clear light a fundamental breach of contract on the part of the Church. At countless points in history, starting with the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years war, the Church has struck a concord with the state whereby in exchange for not trying to control the government, the Chuch would be left in peace. We need look no further than the French Revolution to see what the price has been for renegging on that agreement.”

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. When was there ever some sort of agreement between Rome and the Unied States? Do you mean the Church has a history of breaching contracts with the state, or vice versa? I think there are copious examples of each. Also, the United States is a lot different than absolutist Europe, the nations of which made efforts to advance the cause of Catholicism, frequently resulting in the state’s usurpation of Church property and authority, necessitating intervention to preserve the correct role of the Church in the problem nation.

“This meddling is particularly bothersome when it is being perpetrated against a constitutional government. The Church is a moral authority, and it can tell its members what actions are moral. However, what place does it have telling its members what powers should or should not be vested in their governments? That is not a theological question, it is not a question which the Church is in any position to comment intelligently upon.”

What you are saying is that the Church can tell people how to vote, but not what sort of government should be in power? I disagree; I think it *is* a theological question. Christ’s eternal kingship over the entire Earth is not a freely-elected democracy. We believe he’s the king, not the prime minister. Don’t get me wrong; this doesn’t mean that we should start a revolution. The Pope can’t speak infallibly on what the right answer to the question of which government is correct, but it can give doctrine on the matter.

I think that the most fundamental disagreement here is that the Catholic Church sees as its most fundamental goal the salvation of souls, and that it has the right to step in wherever necessary to achieve these goals, while the United States sees as its primary goal the protection of the p

I need to clarify myself on a couple of points.First, I am not saying that the government should intervene to stop the Church from supporting Bush (although tax-free status must be questioned at this point). I am saying that the Church should not do it. It is wrong for them to do it, but it is not illegal.Secondly, the question of whether or not abortions are legal has a great deal to do wtih the structure of our government. Abortion is not legal because abortions are great, it is legal because the government does not have the authority to prohibit it. So by saying that we should outlaw abortion, the Church is saying that we should change the structure of our government. Whether that is appropriate is iffy, but I deffinately don’t feel that belief in limited government should be grounds for excommunication.

I’m not sure how banning abortion is impossible for the USA. Abortions have been illegal before in many governments throughout history, and restricted or banned to various extents in states of the USA. Sure, people still had them, but people still commit homicide against adult humans even though that’s always been illegal. Should be abolish all homicide laws, and not just anti-abortion legislation? I don’t get it.

In banning abortion, or just overthrowing Roe, we need not establish a new branch of government or anything like that. How would that change our government, John?

John, I appreciate state’s rights, and I mentioned above that I would be happy with an overturn on Roe v. Wade, turning abortion into a state-by-state issue. I don’t care how we get past this horrible procedure, so long as we do. I’m not sure where you’re going wtih limitations on federal government, or your aforementioned “sovereignties”. I agree with many of your individual points, but I don’t follow you in reasoning that anti-abortion legislation may not be the purview of federal action.

Moreover, you talked about segregation existing in spite of the 14th amendment, and say that this demonstrates that a federal government’s right to intervene for the fetus is limited. Wrong. Segregation laws were struck down by a federal branch of government, the Supreme Court. Yes, it took a while, but society often takes a while to get its head out of its collective rear end. Hence slavery. Hence segregation (still ongoing, alas). And so with abortion, as my optimistic (personal) opinion would have it.

You are correct in pointing out the 14th amendment as a key player. And since we have that, once people are more open to the fact that the fetus is a person, anti-abortion legistlation and judicial decisions shall follow. And since it fall unders the 14th Amendment, it is under (at least partially) the purview of the federal government.

But as I mentioned above, I don’t really care if it is the federal government’s job to ban abortion or not (though a human life amendment would make it so), so long as abortion becomes, as Feminists for Life puts it “unthinkable” (which is more important than illegal–witness Prohibition).

Others believe that banning abortion is within the federal government’s purview. Also, to reject Kerry is not the same as endorsing Bush. There are other options. Don’t give me any crap about third parties not being viable. If conservative Christians supported third party candidates, they’d wield a lot of power.

Well, the Church definitely tells people what to think about when they vote, but is wise to rarely point people directly at one candidate (black Protestant churches have fewer compunctions about directly saying “vote Democratic”, but that’s another story…). Ratzinger did also caution that other issues could trump abortion, which I was glad he did, since while I’m in the “anyone but Kerry camp” (a mirror image of the “anyone but Bush” school of thought prevalent on campus), I don’t like being uncritical of nominally pro-life candidates. Take a look at the civil rights movement, and some of its more prominent members now: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Race-baiters and swindlers. The pro-life movement should always stand ready to clean up its own mess, or we may have a similar future (but perhaps without the same success the civil rights movement had before stagnating).

I do stand with Funky and Tom on the Church’s mandate to inform the conscience of Catholic voters, but we should not overstate what the Church does.

Your absolute sovereignty over your own actions ends when those actions endanger another person. Your limited speech example is a good one. A fetus is a human person. Thus any action which endangers that person must be curtailed. At the top of the list is abortion.

If you deny the personhood of the fetus, fine. There should at least be lengthy discussion and reflection on the issue in the congressional fora. I haven’t seen that. All I’ve seen a lot of accusations of “anti-choice” mentality, as though pro-lifers get their jollies putting limits on peoples rights. The last time any serious reflection and discussion on the issue took place in the government was when the Supreme Court handled Roe v. Wade. It’s time to talk about it again. This time, medical science can weigh in on the issue (with 4D ultrasound images, for instance). Abortion is not a constitutional right. Like any Supreme Court decision, it can be overturned.